Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Today’s front pages – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    We do. Well, my university does. See https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-east/campus-facilities-and-build if you want pretty pictures.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
  • Fifty weeks exactly to the next general election, 23rd January, 2025.

    Who will be the Prime Minister on polling day...?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    Useless has to have some sacrificial lambs , Drugs overlord gone with PTSD, now Mathieson. It is Custer's last stand , useless and his hubris have led them up the garden path and it will be carnage from here on in.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    ..

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    Suggesting that British born BAMEs aren’t really British is Goodwin’s latest slippery little trick. I suppose they’re an easy visible target towards which to direct the torch wielding mob.
    "The Scots are as British as anyone," isn't your usual line.
    We’re as British as any other person born in the UK. Polling suggests we don’t feel as strong an attachment to that identity as BAME folk, despite the best efforts of Goodwin and his fellow travellers to put them off.
    Nicely delphic, especially the UK bit.

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    The drunken malingerer thing was bullshit, incidentally. He was a lay Methodist preacher and an exemplary soldier, IIRC.

    Also, IIRC, his descendants protested at his portrayal
    Great movie, tho. Really really great

    I imagine it is barely showable now, as it is quite non-Woke
    Apart from it being on woke Channel 4 at new year and on 4OD (maybe still is) it’s barely showable.
    Yep. You can't get away from it. If you want to not watch it you have to make that a priority.
    But if you change channel (to the only other channel), they are showing The Dam Busters on a loop. With the name of the dog* unbleeped.

    *Dog not included for scale.
    Time for a good book then, preferably one without any 'heroic' war nonsense. Eg I'm into a Japanese magical realist epic atm. I pick it up whenever I'm tempted to do something reprehensible.
    Or fire up The Cruel Sea.

    "Snorkers! Good oh!"
    Train smash as it was known to my father, albeit when served with tomatoes.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    malcolmg said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Our town's dentist is technically an NHS dentists, but apparently you need the luck of the devil to get on the NHS list there (they are very good dentists, if that helps).

    A new dentist has opened up in the town, in a very central location. And from what I see on their website, they don't take NHS patients.

    We're lucky in that we can afford to go private. But many people we know can not, and some don't have cars to take them to NHS dentists elsewhere.

    The system will have to change; I don't know in what way, though.
    I am a member of a village whatsapp group that I forgot to leave. The big thing atm is finding a dentist. Someone needed urgent treatment and then everyone piled in with their views (as is the way). Someone else had googled/investigated that there was no NHS dentist taking new patients within 60 miles of the village.

    It turns out, according to group wisdom, that Mydentist was the preferred option and offers "20% more expensive than the NHS with many benefits that make it worthwhile". From which I can deduce that the NHS isn't free anyway. These are people of a low economic group who are accepting that going private is necessary and anyway not that much more expensive than the NHS.
    No way they are getting real "private" for 20% above NHS costs. Sounds like poundstretchers private.
    Those who shop at Poundstretchers understand the need to balance cost and benefit. They have to.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    I think the current presumption is that capitalism works. Students need accommodation, so demand is increased, so supply will increase.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044

    Fifty weeks exactly to the next general election, 23rd January, 2025.

    Bold claim.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,137

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    And spy the best. Not like this clown on the front page of The Times.

    Revealed: suspected Russian spy ‘worked for MI6’ and Foreign Office
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-spy-uk-mi6-foreign-office-exclusive-investigation-bk59tq3s5 (£££)

    Guy Burgess worked for MI6 and the Foreign Office* and was not even suspected until he disappeared. There's your Cambridge education right there.

    *and MI5 and the BBC.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,878
    edited February 8

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    Don’t see how that would work with her support of those ghouls hanging about outside NHS abortion clinics.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    edited February 8
    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,544
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    It is the government that really wants the overseas students, more so than the universities. £40bn goes a long way when we have a massive trade deficit.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,878
    ..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Just rung and cancelled my NHS dental appointment for next week… our NHS dentist is Romanian and @Leon says he shouldn’t be in the country… and who am I to argue with @Leon

    Yes I'm not sure I've seen a white British dentist since I was a child. I suspect the net effect of immigration on dentist availability has been positive.
    By contrast I have never seen anything other than a white British dentist , apart from white American ones when I lived there. Just depends where you live.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    If the student accommodation takes up the plots of land that would have otherwise gone on flats, social housing etc, then it still contributes.

    Emotive issue. I'm surprised that no politician has weaponised it yet.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system

    * Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable
    * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense
    * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment
    * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'

    In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?

    This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13058261/why-wont-police-let-leave-britain-ilegal-channel-migrant-living-rowing-boat.html

    Quite: this should have been a 48 hour determination at most.
    We must have the only police force in the world that actively tried to stop someone who admits, and is actively trying to go stop leaving !
    But, what can they do with this boat-dwelling arsehole? They can't deport him to Syria. They can't deport him to Germany because of our hard won BREXIT FREEDOMS. The Old Bill can't just not enforce the law that says you can't blag your way onto ferries.
    Stick him on a train to Dublin.
    Brutal! I remember aged 18 going to Spain for a week just before taking up my first job. On the beach I met an English guy about the same age as me with a battered boat and 'Joe's Speedboat' daubed on the side.

    He had a bevy of girls around him and every now and then someone would turn up wanting a ski he'd give them a spin round the bay. I spent most of the week with him and I spent the next several years wondering why I was working like a dog in London and wasn't doing what Joe was doing with his bevvy of girls not a care in the world driving his speedboat.

    When did we become this morose place where we worry about someone from another country sleeping under a boat or
    even buying one if he wants to? What's wrong with foreigners being here? When did this obsession start?
    Because he broke the rules
    Do you remember when we used to think we lived in a 'free country'? When most lived by the philosophy of 'live and let live'? '

    I don't think many feel that anymore
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    When did casino go?
    Nowhere. He's lurking. Last active 09:50 this morning...
    Deciding whether to come out of his flounce no doubt
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    I see the Right are pushing back over Rishi's PMQs controversy yesterday. The alternative narrative is that Sir Keir put on a mawkish, insincere display that milked a tragic murder for his own grubby political ends. Which narrative will gain supremacy?

    A rare example when both are obviously true. Thanks to Ms Atkins with that unforgettably awful smirk I think Rishi will almost certainly be the loser.

    Talking of losers Boris Becker's fall from grace is well worth watching. In two parts on ITV. Modesty prevents me drawing attention to one of my commercials appearing in it showing what things were like when he was living the good life.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,310
    edited February 8
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    Essexist?

    ETA: They'll have your head on a kent for that :wink:
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,137

    Fifty weeks exactly to the next general election, 23rd January, 2025.

    Who will be the Prime Minister on polling day...?
    It's in the thread header FFS.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    It's the sort of thing you wouldn't want to come up during a (May) election campaign.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    If the student accommodation takes up the plots of land that would have otherwise gone on flats, social housing etc, then it still contributes.

    Emotive issue. I'm surprised that no politician has weaponised it yet.
    Polling suggests that the British public is generally in favour of overseas students. (But then polling shows the public is generally more in favour of all forms of immigration than they are in favour of immigration in the abstract.)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002
    edited February 8
    Cookie said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    The drunken malingerer thing was bullshit, incidentally. He was a lay Methodist preacher and an exemplary soldier, IIRC.

    Also, IIRC, his descendants protested at his portrayal
    Great movie, tho. Really really great

    I imagine it is barely showable now, as it is quite non-Woke
    Apart from it being on woke Channel 4 at new year and on 4OD (maybe still is) it’s barely showable.
    It is on all the bloody time. Not sure what Leon is getting at. I know because it sucks me in every time. The Hook story line is a really good one - bad boy comes good. Shame it is complete fiction and upsets his family so much, but then most films of true events do this as otherwise they would be boring if they were really true accounts.
    I am happy to accept that in this instance - the public broadcasting of Zulu - I am totally wrong, and pleased to be wrong

    It always sucks me in too. The scene where they do the rapid fire shooting is one of the most amazing and rivetting in all cinema. Also the Welsh singing: spine tingling!
    Agree the Welsh singing. Tugs at the heart strings.

    The thing is for most of us when we see and read things the word woke or non-woke doesn't cross our minds unless it is very blatant.

    Even now I am struggling to see what is non-woke in Zulu. I assume it is the nationalism and empire, but that is our history. Only the nutters should get offended. One could even at a stretch see woke elements to the film (I don't) eg the respect for the Zulus, disrespect and failings of Christianity, disrespect for the upper classes (initially).

    Most of us just enjoy a well made film, well acted without any thought of woke.
    This took me 30 seconds to find


    "Sir Michael Caine has described the inclusion of the film Zulu on a list of cultural works that could incite the far right as the “biggest load of bull****” he has ever heard.

    Last month a review of counter-terrorism programme Prevent found that Zulu was among works cited as ‘key texts’ for white nationalists."

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/michael-caine-zulu-prevent-far-right-extremism/

    "Nick Ferrari In Fiery Row With Campaigner Over Calls To Ban “Racist” Zulu Film"

    "Calls to axe 'racist' Zulu film from Folkestone's Silver Screen Cinema listings"

    https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/calls-to-axe-racist-zulu-film-from-cinema-185221/

    There are many, many more
    Yes I had already read these before making my post. Initially I was going to respond to your first post about it being non-woke as bollocks and then found you were right and there was stuff out there, so I didn't and made my more considered post above later.

    My point still stands which is referring to the nutters, not the vast majority of normal people.

    Let's face it, it would not be surprising if the far right used this film as well as other films like the Dambusters to get all over patriotic and wet their pants with excitement. Equally most of us are also not in the loon camp who then want to ban films because it encourages 0.001% of the population to march down the street making Nazi salutes.

    Those headlines reflect the loons on both sides, not normal people.

    The problem is though that while it's quite easy to ignore the nazis, the 'everything is racist' loons - who as you note, are a minority - are nevertheless particularly influential, and their views have particular currency in education, broadcasting and the civil service. Very difficult to just ignore if you want to be educated or entertained or interact with the public sector.
    False equivalence hooter. The opposite equivalent to the "everything is racist" grouping is the "nothing is racist even racism" one. These aren't nazis. They usually aren't even far right. They are people who for whatever reason don't believe racism is anything like the problem it's cracked up to be. They will often think people "playing the race card" is the bigger issue to be tackled. They are numerous and because of this are not particularly easy to ignore.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    Don’t see how that would work with her support of those ghouls hanging about outside NHS abortion clinics.

    I was more thinking he would rather have her in the tent peeing outwards, I’m sure he’ll be criticised either way.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    Nayib Bukele's speech after winning reelection is worth watching. El Salvador has become the country with the lowest muder rate in the western hemisphere:

    https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1755411561575817340
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    Unfortunately the only way the uk economy can now generate growth above zero is to have massive non white non eu immigration. Otherwise we would basically be stuck in a permanent recession.
    That might increase nominal GDP but it doesn't increase GDP per capita.

    The way to generate growth is through higher productivity.

    The way to generate higher productivity is for the country to live within its means.

    The country living within its means is an idea which terrifies most people and all politicians.
    Exactly , packing in loads of immigrants year after year for 25 years has shown exactly what impact it has. Living in a tent if you are lucky , no teeth and praying you don't get ill. There are foodbanks though.
  • Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    You’re not a man of Kent I take it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    If the student accommodation takes up the plots of land that would have otherwise gone on flats, social housing etc, then it still contributes.

    Emotive issue. I'm surprised that no politician has weaponised it yet.
    Er, haven't we seen it passim on PB? Which usually means it's being picked up from the wider political world. But you might be right.

    Students do mean university jobs, directlu and indirectly (e.g. in science parks, local bars, plumbers, etc). And quite a few students *are* locals by family, not just residence in term time (whjich also means they vote if they can be arsed). So demanding unis scale down is a bit like demanding the local school be shut down without replacement.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    ..

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    Suggesting that British born BAMEs aren’t really British is Goodwin’s latest slippery little trick. I suppose they’re an easy visible target towards which to direct the torch wielding mob.
    "The Scots are as British as anyone," isn't your usual line.
    We’re as British as any other person born in the UK. Polling suggests we don’t feel as strong an attachment to that identity as BAME folk, despite the best efforts of Goodwin and his fellow travellers to put them off.
    Not me TUD , I am 100% Scottish, well some Irish in there I suppose but watered down.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    If the student accommodation takes up the plots of land that would have otherwise gone on flats, social housing etc, then it still contributes.

    Emotive issue. I'm surprised that no politician has weaponised it yet.
    Polling suggests that the British public is generally in favour of overseas students. (But then polling shows the public is generally more in favour of all forms of immigration than they are in favour of immigration in the abstract.)
    It's probably a niche issue for some uni towns, nothing more. But it does support my idea that the "housing crisis" cannot be thought of at a national level - it's city by city, market by market.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 8

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    You’re not a man of Kent I take it.
    No, nor even a Kentish man - geography a bit hazy.

    [Edit] Quite right to correct that slip, so ignore the attempted joke. But doesn't the local dialect sound the same on both sides of the Estuary, as a matter of interest?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    Anyone know when the last major reservoir was built in the UK?
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 609
    Chris said:

    I see the Right are pushing back over Rishi's PMQs controversy yesterday. The alternative narrative is that Sir Keir put on a mawkish, insincere display that milked a tragic murder for his own grubby political ends. Which narrative will gain supremacy?

    For most people, the one that was prevalent at the time it was reported, not the one presented later to people still discussing it on social media.
    Sunak now saying it was "sad and wrong" to have linked anti-trans comments to Brianna Ghey... but he's still refusing to apologise for having done so.

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/08/brianna-gheys-dad-calls-rishis-transgender-comment-dehumanising-20244380
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    She would be mental to join the Titanic as it starts to go down. I do not believe she is that stupid.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    That place can turn even the roughest bricks into a polished diamond.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,263
    edited February 8
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, defend it all because you are bound by the contract for a crap product that you signed, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002

    Fifty weeks exactly to the next general election, 23rd January, 2025.

    Who will be the Prime Minister on polling day...?
    It's in the thread header FFS.
    Or (as they really want to say) ... to the COMEBACK of AMAZING BORIS!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    Evidence is plain to see. You invite 5 strangers to come live at your house at your expense, it will not make you richer.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    malcolmg said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    Unfortunately the only way the uk economy can now generate growth above zero is to have massive non white non eu immigration. Otherwise we would basically be stuck in a permanent recession.
    That might increase nominal GDP but it doesn't increase GDP per capita.

    The way to generate growth is through higher productivity.

    The way to generate higher productivity is for the country to live within its means.

    The country living within its means is an idea which terrifies most people and all politicians.
    Exactly , packing in loads of immigrants year after year for 25 years has shown exactly what impact it has. Living in a tent if you are lucky , no teeth and praying you don't get ill. There are foodbanks though.
    Forget productivity - the easiest way to boost GDP per capita would be to ship all under 18s and retirees off to Rwanda.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 8

    Anyone know when the last major reservoir was built in the UK?

    Try Rutland Water. 1970s. Farmoor near Oxford, too, but it might be too small for you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,877
    Amazing that the police don't seem to have caught Ezedi hiding in plain sight in the likes of Tescos. Does everyone just assume someone else has called the police in situations like that ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,878

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    Don’t see how that would work with her support of those ghouls hanging about outside NHS abortion clinics.

    I was more thinking he would rather have her in the tent peeing outwards, I’m sure he’ll be criticised either way.
    Possibly but I don’t think Health would fit.
    Forbes could take the Drugs & Alcohol portfolio if she really wants a challenge, plenty of alcohol addiction problems in her highland hinterland.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    Bit too nerdy for my taste.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    You’re not a man of Kent I take it.
    No, nor even a Kentish man - geography a bit hazy.

    [Edit] Quite right to correct that slip, so ignore the attempted joke. But doesn't the local dialect sound the same on both sides of the Estuary, as a matter of interest?
    Minor London Mayoral candidate, Serge Crowbolder, is proposing linking Essex and Kent with the construction of a large dam, creating a large freshwater lake in the current estuary.
  • Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    I've contemplated it. Question - how do we manage without migration?

    In principle we should be doing all we can to better ourselves. Have a brilliant education system where the aim is to get as many people as possible as educated and practically skilled as our society needs. Have a world-class health and social care system, so that people are proactively kept healthy and productive, with a strong safety net to catch people who need support. A globally-relevant industrial sector, plugged into our universities who develop exciting breakthroughs like Graphene which we then commercialise and sell to the world.

    In principle. In practice? We don't do any of that, which is why we need migration. Lets assume our annual cost is £17bn, and we decided instead to spend it on ourselves. First off, £17bn isn't very much to achieve all the lofty aims just listed. And most critically, the people who are loudly anti-immigration are as loudly anti-spending money on workshy scroungers, or education, or healthcare, or skills.

    So if you want to propose that we embark on a 20 year program to turn the UK into a new global powerhouse - educated, healthy, socially secure - then I am all for it. But you're not. Which is why we need migration.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,544
    Spare a thought for the guy who has spent eight years building a 23ft Eiffel Tower out of 706,900 matchsticks only to find out he had the wrong type of matchsticks for the world record.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443

    Anyone know when the last major reservoir was built in the UK?

    Carsington in 1991
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    a
    Carnyx said:

    ..

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    Suggesting that British born BAMEs aren’t really British is Goodwin’s latest slippery little trick. I suppose they’re an easy visible target towards which to direct the torch wielding mob.
    "The Scots are as British as anyone," isn't your usual line.
    We’re as British as any other person born in the UK. Polling suggests we don’t feel as strong an attachment to that identity as BAME folk, despite the best efforts of Goodwin and his fellow travellers to put them off.
    Nicely delphic, especially the UK bit.

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    The drunken malingerer thing was bullshit, incidentally. He was a lay Methodist preacher and an exemplary soldier, IIRC.

    Also, IIRC, his descendants protested at his portrayal
    Great movie, tho. Really really great

    I imagine it is barely showable now, as it is quite non-Woke
    Apart from it being on woke Channel 4 at new year and on 4OD (maybe still is) it’s barely showable.
    Yep. You can't get away from it. If you want to not watch it you have to make that a priority.
    But if you change channel (to the only other channel), they are showing The Dam Busters on a loop. With the name of the dog* unbleeped.

    *Dog not included for scale.
    Time for a good book then, preferably one without any 'heroic' war nonsense. Eg I'm into a Japanese magical realist epic atm. I pick it up whenever I'm tempted to do something reprehensible.
    Or fire up The Cruel Sea.

    "Snorkers! Good oh!"
    Train smash as it was known to my father, albeit when served with tomatoes.
    Snorkers = very dubious tinned sausages
    Train Smash = everything available cooked together.

    I *thought*
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,310
    edited February 8
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    You’re not a man of Kent I take it.
    No, nor even a Kentish man - geography a bit hazy.

    [Edit] Quite right to correct that slip, so ignore the attempted joke. But doesn't the local dialect sound the same on both sides of the Estuary, as a matter of interest?
    There's a whole range of accents in Essex - from the stereotypical TOWIE accent close to London to something quite different out towards the Suffolk borders. I grew up in Chelmsford (more or less in the middle of Essex) and most people through my life have not thought I have an Essex accent. I take more after my dad, who grew up near the Suffolk border, than my mum who grew up near Brentwood (more TOWIE-esque). People at school thought I sounded very posh (oddly enough as I was from one of the poorer families).

    Kent is a pretty flat estuary accent, but mostly not the stereotypical Essex sound.

    Of course, in both, as you get close to London it gets more similar, to my ears at least.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
    Most of the active travel campaigners in Edinburgh have given up.

    The council will use the cycle/walking/running corridors for the trams because it's easier than pissing off drivers (who account for only 20% of trips in Edinburgh). There is no monetary value assigned to the peace, quiet and safety of Roseburn so the cost of destroying it is relatively very small.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    Wrong side of the Thames Estuary! Kent.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    edited February 8

    Anyone know when the last major reservoir was built in the UK?

    Many years for a really major one. Hence my scheme for Ben Nevis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,877

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    If you build enough homes of any kind, the prices will fall. Even the Ancient Romans knew this.

    This is, in part, why we don't build the houses required.

    The conversion effect in the market is fascinating. Where I work (small bank), the new joiners no longer expect to move to their own flat. Instead they live in posh versions of HMOs. Whereas a few years ago...

    Similarly, in West London, the houses built by the Victorians and Edwardians, quite explicitly, for the poor, are now 7 figures.

    I do wonder, if the property market ever unwinds, how that will change.
    See also the increasing prevalence of the 45 year mortgage - taken out, on average, by someone aged 33.

    Which makes for interesting math.
    I thought the 35 year mortgage twin A is taking out aged 21 seemed rather long

    To add her plan is to have a lodger or 2 (probably post grad students) for a couple of reasons

    1) for some company
    2) the income should allow her to pay the mortgage off in 10 years or so
    I was thinking about this. Isn't it mathematically best to take out as long a mortgage as possible, and shovel as much money into either a lifetime ISA or your pension (Depending on salary etc) as possible ? Your mortgage is pretty almost always the cheapest money available.
    Will have a higher expected value, yes, but with more risk.
    I'd say so for a regular ISA but with LISAs and salary sac pensions and the fact mortgage is paid post tax it tips it towards the LISA/pension route. That's my plan anyway. A bit of platform risk with Hargreaves Lansdowne, Aegon, Vanguard and Legal & General too I guess.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    Don’t see how that would work with her support of those ghouls hanging about outside NHS abortion clinics.

    I was more thinking he would rather have her in the tent peeing outwards, I’m sure he’ll be criticised either way.
    Possibly but I don’t think Health would fit.
    Forbes could take the Drugs & Alcohol portfolio if she really wants a challenge, plenty of alcohol addiction problems in her highland hinterland.
    TUD, you well know she is brainier than your average SNP drone trougher ( not difficult if IQ above 50), she will not take any poisoned chalice from that useless clown. She might deign to take Finance to rub his nose in it but nothing less.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    Rude! She never lived in Margate, her parents were living in Ramsgate at the time but she spent most of her childhood in Derby.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    a

    Carnyx said:

    ..

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    Suggesting that British born BAMEs aren’t really British is Goodwin’s latest slippery little trick. I suppose they’re an easy visible target towards which to direct the torch wielding mob.
    "The Scots are as British as anyone," isn't your usual line.
    We’re as British as any other person born in the UK. Polling suggests we don’t feel as strong an attachment to that identity as BAME folk, despite the best efforts of Goodwin and his fellow travellers to put them off.
    Nicely delphic, especially the UK bit.

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    I didn't see you travelling down this path tbh. What does it matter what colour people are. Plus I've no idea whether your "stat" is true. I haven't yet come across a black Polish plumber or Romanian bricklayer or indeed Albanian chippie but I'm sure some exist.

    Or are you feeling a bit besieged on PB atm and are doubling down.
    I am merely saying that the video is - arguably - a visual representation of the pressure mass migration is putting on the UK's public services and infra. This is hardly a new point from me, I am hardly going off on a new Nazi tangent, am I? I expect you've heard me make the point before

    And yet there are PB-ers who deny this is an issue. Who deny that mass migration might be at least part of the reason we see such pressure on UK health, education, sewage, roads, &c

    See below

    i do feel slightly beseiged, but I quite enjoy it (for now). With @Casino_Royale gone I am like the last redcoat in Zulu, the drunken malingerer in the sick bay turned hero, shooting up at the thatch as the lefty hordes overwhelm the Drift. Hooky. That was his name. Hooky. Got a VC didn't he?
    The drunken malingerer thing was bullshit, incidentally. He was a lay Methodist preacher and an exemplary soldier, IIRC.

    Also, IIRC, his descendants protested at his portrayal
    Great movie, tho. Really really great

    I imagine it is barely showable now, as it is quite non-Woke
    Apart from it being on woke Channel 4 at new year and on 4OD (maybe still is) it’s barely showable.
    Yep. You can't get away from it. If you want to not watch it you have to make that a priority.
    But if you change channel (to the only other channel), they are showing The Dam Busters on a loop. With the name of the dog* unbleeped.

    *Dog not included for scale.
    Time for a good book then, preferably one without any 'heroic' war nonsense. Eg I'm into a Japanese magical realist epic atm. I pick it up whenever I'm tempted to do something reprehensible.
    Or fire up The Cruel Sea.

    "Snorkers! Good oh!"
    Train smash as it was known to my father, albeit when served with tomatoes.
    Snorkers = very dubious tinned sausages
    Train Smash = everything available cooked together.

    I *thought*
    On checking I think we're both right re train smash - like lobscouse it varies according to what is slung into it by whosoever is doing the cooking. But tomatoes are the key binding ingredient.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    We don’t go Sarf of the river…..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    I've contemplated it. Question - how do we manage without migration?

    In principle we should be doing all we can to better ourselves. Have a brilliant education system where the aim is to get as many people as possible as educated and practically skilled as our society needs. Have a world-class health and social care system, so that people are proactively kept healthy and productive, with a strong safety net to catch people who need support. A globally-relevant industrial sector, plugged into our universities who develop exciting breakthroughs like Graphene which we then commercialise and sell to the world.

    In principle. In practice? We don't do any of that, which is why we need migration. Lets assume our annual cost is £17bn, and we decided instead to spend it on ourselves. First off, £17bn isn't very much to achieve all the lofty aims just listed. And most critically, the people who are loudly anti-immigration are as loudly anti-spending money on workshy scroungers, or education, or healthcare, or skills.

    So if you want to propose that we embark on a 20 year program to turn the UK into a new global powerhouse - educated, healthy, socially secure - then I am all for it. But you're not. Which is why we need migration.
    Easy make people have to be self sufficient, let the weak lazy barstewards go to the dogs, support only the people who really cannot work.Use all the saved benefits money to improve public services, education , care services, NHS etc. Make it necessary and worthwhile to be working.
    Stop paying massive rents to rapacious landlords and spend the cash on cheap social housing, etc.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    Spare a thought for the guy who has spent eight years building a 23ft Eiffel Tower out of 706,900 matchsticks only to find out he had the wrong type of matchsticks for the world record.

    It makes my life look productive!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    Bit too nerdy for my taste.
    God, it's so easy being on the Left. Any awkward evidence, simply ignore it. Sorted

    Enviable, in a way. Just spend your intellectual life in some kind of mediocre Tenerife of the mind, maybe on an outdoor terrace bar of stupidity, listening to the muzak of meh I don't want to think about it
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
    Most of the active travel campaigners in Edinburgh have given up.

    The council will use the cycle/walking/running corridors for the trams because it's easier than pissing off drivers (who account for only 20% of trips in Edinburgh). There is no monetary value assigned to the peace, quiet and safety of Roseburn so the cost of destroying it is relatively very small.
    I should also note that it's completely incoherent - they are currently building a Roseburn - Union Canal cycle link, which will be made largely redundant if this goes ahead.

    It took us 10 years and endless consultations for construction to begin late last year.

    https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cycling-walking/roseburn-union-canal
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Dutch and Danish are not the same language. You've mixed it up with Danish research which came to the same conclusion.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,956
    edited February 8
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, defend it all because you are bound by the contract for a crap product that you signed, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
    The Roseburn cycling path in Edinburgh is genuinely great. It's also part of national cycle route 1, from London to the very tip of Scotland.

    Obviously it only exists because a tram route used to go down it, so it makes a certain amount of sense to put trams back onto it, but it will be a massive loss to being able to navigate around and through Edinburgh by bicycle without having to mix it with traffic on the roads.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044

    Anyone know when the last major reservoir was built in the UK?

    Carsington in 1991
    According to Torsten Bell, 1992, though maybe that is the one. Population increase has been 10 million since then.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,877
    edited February 8
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    I think what tipped me firmly to a remain vote/rejoin camp more than anything else was a trip I took to the Netherlands back in May 2016 to meet some friends from an online community (They were from Poland, Denmark, Netherlands). I realised then what has become patently obvious since - if we're going to have immigration the EU is probably the most culturally similar source to have it from. Both the left and right really don't like this truth, but it was the big unspoken advantage of freedom of movement within the EU.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research


    Here's the report. In English


    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue
    This is where you fucked up.
    No, it isn't

    It will be newcomers seeking dentists. Settled citizens (of any stripe) will already have dentists, in the main

    For the last eight years the vast majority of migration into Britain - since Brexit - has been non-white, non-EU. You would therefore expect a queue of new people, presumably seeking a dentist, to be non-white
    Not really. People move around, and will need a new dentist. Existing dental practices shut down and their patients need a new dentist. Plenty of people simply don't have a dentist because NHS dentists in their area won't take new patients. You just looked at a queue of non white people and said "they must be immigrants" on the basis of no information. Given that you live in Camden you have a surprisingly provincial and outdated view of British society.
    St Paul's, Bristol, has one of the higher levels of non-UK-born inhabitants in the country. So, no, I didn't just presume, I looked at the data
    St Paul's has had a large African/Caribbean population since the 1950s (it has had a carnival since the early 1960s and was where the Bristol Bus Boycott started) so will also be home to a significant non white population who are not immigrants and certainly not recent arrivals. I just don't know how one can judge whether the crowd outside the dental practice are recent immigrants or not based on their appearance.
    It all reminds me of some friends of my grandparents who congratulated my then girlfriend, now wife, on her beautiful English. Her parents are Sri Lankan but she was born in Margate and was studying at Cambridge University at the time so her English language skills were not really that surprising.
    People who attended the University of Cambridge speak the best. Fact.

    We also write the best.
    If the young lady was brought up in Margate I’m surprised she spoke good English!
    The thought did occur to me, but I instantly dismissed it on consideration, as essexist.
    You’re not a man of Kent I take it.
    No, nor even a Kentish man - geography a bit hazy.

    [Edit] Quite right to correct that slip, so ignore the attempted joke. But doesn't the local dialect sound the same on both sides of the Estuary, as a matter of interest?
    There's a whole range of accents in Essex - from the stereotypical TOWIE accent close to London to something quite different out towards the Suffolk borders. I grew up in Chelmsford (more or less in the middle of Essex) and most people through my life have not thought I have an Essex accent. I take more after my dad, who grew up near the Suffolk border, than my mum who grew up near Brentwood (more TOWIE-esque). People at school thought I sounded very posh (oddly enough as I was from one of the poorer families).

    Kent is a pretty flat estuary accent, but mostly not the stereotypical Essex sound.

    Of course, in both, as you get close to London it gets more similar, to my ears at least.
    I lived much of my life on the North bank of the Thames, with two short periods in the North East and North West.
    In retirement I moved North of Chelmsford and although quite a few people still speak ‘Essex’ as described by Mr Selebian most of the younger folk sound as though they’re from Southend.
    Sadly.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    edited February 8

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, defend it all because you are bound by the contract for a crap product that you signed, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
    The Roseburn cycling path in Edinburgh is genuinely great. It's also part of national cycle route 1, from London to the very tip of Scotland.

    Obviously it only exists because a tram route used to go down it, so it makes a certain amount of sense to put trams back onto it, but it will be a massive loss to being able to navigate around and through Edinburgh by bicycle without having to mix it with traffic on the roads.
    It's fantastic because the gradient is perfect for cycling in a very hilly city.

    Typical for a local council to put public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists in conflict with each other. I'm a massive fan of the tram, yet here I am...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,946
    Sean_F said:

    If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.


    We've heard that one a few times before. Although 2-3 years is a fresh new twist on it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.


    We've heard that one a few times before. Although 2-3 years is a fresh new twist on it.
    Yes, comrade!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    edited February 8
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    edited February 8
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.

    Also, I don't that the importance of economic strength can be underestimated. The side that is economically weaker has to get very lucky (like Germany in 1940), to achieve victory.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
    The technology development is lopsided and evolving. Equally could be that only vehicles with point defence systems (which already exist) can survive on the battle field. With unprotected individuals being doomed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,002
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    Bit too nerdy for my taste.
    God, it's so easy being on the Left. Any awkward evidence, simply ignore it. Sorted

    Enviable, in a way. Just spend your intellectual life in some kind of mediocre Tenerife of the mind, maybe on an outdoor terrace bar of stupidity, listening to the muzak of meh I don't want to think about it
    It just looked a bit sweaty - plus it's unHerd which is a further push factor.

    Anyway I see '148' is on it and those are capable (and progressive) hands. So we're all good. It's getting dealt with.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,878
    Cookie said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:
    Curious timing. No official report out yet on the iPad use.

    Something else going on?
    I wonder if Yousaf will offer the Health Secretary job to Kate Forbes.
    Don’t see how that would work with her support of those ghouls hanging about outside NHS abortion clinics.

    Gives me the opportunity for one of* my vasectomy anecdotes.
    At the end of the whole escapade, as, in my loose-fitting trousers, sympathetic wife at my side, feeling not exactly tip-top either physically or mentally, I shuffled uncomfortably out of the door and down the steps to the car park, I was heckled by a gang. I was puzzled by this to start with: I’m no stranger to the odd angry mob, but these were an incongruous angry mob; older, more conservatively dressed, more accessorised by the accoutrements of street Christianity than most angry mobs I had hitherto come across. British Christians, in my experience, very rarely tend to be angry. What were these people doing at a discreet vasectomy clinic in suburban south Manchester? And why were they so cross at me? They were too pathetic and I was too preoccupied with the pain in my penis for me too feel particularly frightened. But I gradually became aware – they were looking slightly to my left, not directly at me, which I also thought odd, given my rather self-absorbed frame of mind: clearly in my head I was the main player in this drama at that moment – that it was not me but my wife they were heckling, and my hackles rose. Clearly they were under the impression that we’d been in for an abortion. Maybe that place did abortions on other days? Who knows.
    Anyway. Not having superstitious nutjobs shout at my wife like that, erroneously or not. The sheer scale of wrongness made a pithy and cutting retort quite challenging, but I rallied. Probably fortuitously, by the time I managed to get the words in order – it was quite a good rant, and I think concluded with the word ‘fuckwits’ – my wife had managed to pilot me into the car, past the still-angry mob and, actually, several miles away. So it was only really her who got the benefit of my wit.
    A pity, but probably for the best.

    * Only one vasectomy, but a few anecdotes. It was an interesting experience.
    'I was too preoccupied with the pain in my penis for me too feel particularly frightened'

    Could imagine Richard Hannay saying that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
    The technology development is lopsided and evolving. Equally could be that only vehicles with point defence systems (which already exist) can survive on the battle field. With unprotected individuals being doomed.
    The videos from Ukraine show in horrifying detail that the battlefield is no place for the human body not protected by armour. Drones are going to accentuate that to the point that moving without armour or an adequate shield is going to be a particularly messy kind of suicide.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research


    Here's the report. In English


    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    Okay - that's me misreading and quickly scanning things in my lunch hour. Will read what I can now :)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
    Our extremely expensive aircraft carriers (which don'twork) are about to be rendered valueless by hypersonic missiles and drone attack

    They will never leave port as they are too expensive to lose and too easily lost. Great

    We shoulda spent that money on AI warfare. And drones
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    There is something missing in what @leon is saying.

    The political set telling people that darkies are responsible for a lack of NHS dentistry are the same political set who continually cut funding to NHS dentistry.

    The solution to a lack of NHS provision for dentists and GPs and hospital beds isn't less foreigners. Its more money spent on provision.

    Where is the money coming from then, is it all those extra imaginary benefits that immigration brings in that it has transformed our economy in the last 25 years to a basket case.
    That Dutch report - linked earlier - on the enormous net drain of non western migrants, on an economy rather like ours (but healthier) makes for very sobering reading

    And of course PB has completely ignored it. Too awkward
    Bit too nerdy for my taste.
    God, it's so easy being on the Left. Any awkward evidence, simply ignore it. Sorted

    Enviable, in a way. Just spend your intellectual life in some kind of mediocre Tenerife of the mind, maybe on an outdoor terrace bar of stupidity, listening to the muzak of meh I don't want to think about it
    It just looked a bit sweaty - plus it's unHerd which is a further push factor.

    Anyway I see '148' is on it and those are capable (and progressive) hands. So we're all good. It's getting dealt with.
    Outsourcing your thinking and moral compass. Interesting.
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
    Our extremely expensive aircraft carriers (which don'twork) are about to be rendered valueless by hypersonic missiles and drone attack

    They will never leave port as they are too expensive to lose and too easily lost. Great

    We shoulda spent that money on AI warfare. And drones
    We should just square the circle and get best bang for our buck for the British taxpayer.

    Order drones from Iran...
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    I think the current presumption is that capitalism works. Students need accommodation, so demand is increased, so supply will increase.
    Definitely happening. Just look at Newcastle or Durham over the last few years. Student digs are increasing.

    Whether it is enough or not, is another matter.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,956
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Another transport thing.

    Amazing visualisation of just how rubbish the train network is outside London: https://x.com/Coneee/status/1755500503985750445?s=20

    While we are on transport, this came up specially for you and @MattW :

    https://www.thenational.scot/sport/24105286.edinburgh-route-tops-list-worst-cycle-lanes-world/
    Weirdly proud of this
    It's an amazing saga over quite a lot of years.

    My favourite faceplants have been how transits park on the tram tracks because "I gotta do my job" (and screw the hundreds of people stuck on the tram), and nothing happens to sort it.

    And the photo of a repair crew repairing a smashed pavement slabs, whilst an HGV is parked on the pavement behind them to deliver, re-smashing the ones they fixed last week or last month.

    And now it's all about to be repeated with part of the Roseburn cycling / walking path, which is planned to be destroyed and replaced with a tram track, in violation of policy going back 20 years that states that if the project were done, cycling and walking facilities would be provided alongside.

    This after umpteen Council funded cycling and walking initiatives rely on the path as it is now, as part of the existing infra they are leveraging off.

    Just not joined up. Create a project, ignore the people-who-know who offer advice, defend it all because you are bound by the contract for a crap product that you signed, go over budget, reduce the quality and strip out the safety features to cover the gap, then pay out millions * in compensation forever for people who are hurt by the dangerous infrastructure.

    TBF many, many Councils are like this and have little option, except where they have their own long-term funding or a regional-Mayor deal, given short-termist funding.

    * From 2012 to 2022 the Council has paid out £1,262,141 to around 200+ cyclists injured on it. Officially that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-injured-edinburgh-tram-line-paid-ps12m-296065
    The Roseburn cycling path in Edinburgh is genuinely great. It's also part of national cycle route 1, from London to the very tip of Scotland.

    Obviously it only exists because a tram route used to go down it, so it makes a certain amount of sense to put trams back onto it, but it will be a massive loss to being able to navigate around and through Edinburgh by bicycle without having to mix it with traffic on the roads.
    It's fantastic because the gradient is perfect for cycling in a very hilly city.

    Typical for a local council to put public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists in conflict with each other. I'm a massive fan of the tram, yet here I am...
    I did a lot of cycling around Edinburgh and yet I spent a lot less time on busy roads then I did cycling around much smaller Exeter, because of the good network of paths like Roseburn. It's such a retrograde step, and it feels so unnecessary, when the whole point of trams is that they can safely coexist with cars, etc, on the road network.

    I'm so glad that I'm not living in Edinburgh to see it happen.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054
    AlsoLei said:

    Chris said:

    I see the Right are pushing back over Rishi's PMQs controversy yesterday. The alternative narrative is that Sir Keir put on a mawkish, insincere display that milked a tragic murder for his own grubby political ends. Which narrative will gain supremacy?

    For most people, the one that was prevalent at the time it was reported, not the one presented later to people still discussing it on social media.
    Sunak now saying it was "sad and wrong" to have linked anti-trans comments to Brianna Ghey... but he's still refusing to apologise for having done so.

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/08/brianna-gheys-dad-calls-rishis-transgender-comment-dehumanising-20244380
    As Sunak seems to be lacking in political instinct across the board, should we be surprised that he lacks the instinct to stop digging when he's in a hole?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    I think the current presumption is that capitalism works. Students need accommodation, so demand is increased, so supply will increase.
    Definitely happening. Just look at Newcastle or Durham over the last few years. Student digs are increasing.

    Whether it is enough or not, is another matter.
    The rate of construction is not at matching the number of students.

    In addition, the construction of student accommodation has hit some snags. Which may cause serious financial problems for some universities.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.


    We've heard that one a few times before. Although 2-3 years is a fresh new twist on it.
    Russia have supposed to have been a couple of years from running out of resources for the last 18 months.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,559
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    5. Absolutely. A national scandal, but the rot began long before Cameron and Osborne - arguably John Major, though I think much of the slimming down in the 90s was inevitable, but certainly Blair and Brown, who not only reduced the budget as a share of GDP but also used the armed forces frenetically.

    I think 3. is probably unduly optimistic. I don't think it will be a lack of foreign exchange reserves that does for Russia. Putin's regime seems strong enough, and the Russian muzhik is apathetic enough, that they will take significant declines in their living standards rather than stop the war.

    What I think might do for Russia in the end is when it finally runs through all the Soviet-era tanks and artillery pieces in about 1-2 years - less if the vast stocks still available have mostly rotted away. Ukraine is not really fighting Russia at the moment, it's fighting the Soviet Union's military legacy (and fighting that WITH part of that legacy, since so much of its kit is still Soviet), and T-55s have been identified on the front lines. That's what I'm most optimistic about in the current situation.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    Man admits calling Tory MP’s office and saying: ‘I’m coming for you’

    One of Mike Freer's tormentors. Classic "doesn't look the type" energy here

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/man-admits-calling-tory-mp-s-office-and-saying-i-m-coming-for-you/ar-BB1hVvqh?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=0685316648b44ef6826e79ca1cbac4af&ei=31
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,956
    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    It's insane that the West has failed so badly to ramp up production of artillery shells.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,137
    edited February 8

    Nayib Bukele's speech after winning reelection is worth watching. El Salvador has become the country with the lowest muder rate in the western hemisphere:

    https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1755411561575817340

    The decline in murder rate is impressive but 7.8 per 100,000 is not the lowest. El Salvador has 6.5 million people, roughly the same population as Scotland which had 52 homicides for the whole country and that is without suspending habeus corpus and rounding up everyone remotely gang-adjacent.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqv9vzqvddwo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,461
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research


    Here's the report. In English


    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    Okay - that's me misreading and quickly scanning things in my lunch hour. Will read what I can now :)
    You're welcome. At least you are prepared to read material that might challenge you, unlike others. It is to your credit

    I read the report - quiickly - it's looooong - and found it pretty persuasive on the Dutch case, but there is not necessarily a direct read across to the UK. However, I fear Holland IS sufficiently similar that much of it will be true here

    And now, a gin and tonic. It's been a long hardworking day. Again
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,917
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Much of urban Britain is now completely dystopian. That queue for the dentists in St Paul's

    https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20

    Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
    That isn't what that video says to any sane person

    Now, don't get me wrong,. every person in that queue deserves free dental care, that is our national policy, that is their right. And dentistry in the UK has been SHITE for decades, and getting worse (I get all mine in Bangkok)

    But the obvious BME over-representation in that queue (compared to national average) does suggest that part of the problem with our NHS (and much else) is the fact we are allowing in immigrants at an historically unprecedented rate - 1.3m in two years, more, per capita, than ever entered the USA - and that is going to fuck up a free heath service, and much else, unless the economy explodes with growth (which it has not done)

    Of course, much of the blame lies with the Tories, they've been in power 14 years and demonstrably screwed this up. Fie on them
    It demonstrates a longstanding truth, that NHS services are worse in poorer areas. The paucity of the services owes nothing to immigration and everything to a government policy of underfunding the NHS and public services more broadly. Immigration is just the convenient excuse Tory stooges wheel out to cover for the government's failings, lapped up by the week minded.
    Do you really honestly believe that adding 10m people to our population, in a few short years - an influx so vast it is greater (per capita) than America experienced during the era of Ellis Island - has NOT put pressure on our NHS, infra, sewage, education, etc?

    I mean, to me this is so ridiculous it is not debatable. It is blindingly obvious. But if you demur I'm kinda impressed
    Of course, if the government chooses not to fund the necessary expansion of public services. But that is a choice.
    And what if the government literally can't afford to fund this necessary expansion. What then? The obvious answer is: end immigration

    Would you agree with that?
    Even if we accept your premise (I don't) the question is a) how and b) how much does that cost?

    If you end immigration we have to increase spending on borders and visa checks and policing people who do and don't have documentation. We have to have more raids and deportations and such. All this requires infrastructure, training, staff, legal battles, boats etc. that the state does not currently have.

    Whereas, again, the government could spend more on infrastructure that benefits everyone (including immigrants) and do some Keynesian economics at the same time. But the government doesn't want to do that because it is wedded to austerity and only the private sector being able to deliver things.

    Whether it's a new Garden City somewhere or appropriate developments on the edges of existing urban areas - I think we both agree new development wouldn't be bad. It's just that the governments answer to new development will be "let a private company do it and build loads of 4-5 bedroom houses that only well off people can afford, as well as a few luxury flats, and let them be overpriced and sold to landlords or investment companies and therefore not alleviate the pressure on the market at all". And that won't solve the underlying issues of rent and house prices being too high. We need council housing to create a base line of affordable homes of acceptable quality.
    I don't see why a shift in immigration policy to, say, cut the current immigration numbers by 80% would require any significant change in spending on borders and visa checks. We already spend on those. If the government wanted, they could just give out fewer visas.

    There are other reasons why that might not be a good idea. I work in the university sector and we'd be f****d if there was a large drop in overseas student numbers.
    If the universities want to attract more foreign students, then perhaps they should be building somewhere for them to live?
    They are doing, contributing to the housing crisis in university cities and towns. They are far more profitable for developers than standard flats, and they eat up what space is available.

    The only way they’d be contributing to a crisis, is if the student numbers (including their dependents), are going up faster than the new housing. You need to tie the numbers together, so that it’s on the university to make sure they have enough accommodation for the numbers enrolling. Want more students, then first build more housing.
    I think the current presumption is that capitalism works. Students need accommodation, so demand is increased, so supply will increase.
    Definitely happening. Just look at Newcastle or Durham over the last few years. Student digs are increasing.

    Whether it is enough or not, is another matter.
    Definitely not enough in Durham. I know it's a small town, but... https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/23073781.durham-university-student-housing-crisis-worsens-students-queue-overnight/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,956

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T I went to a dinner/seminar last night at which defence/ Ukraine issues were discussed at length by top analysts. The key takeaways were:-

    1. Tactically, the performance of the Russian army is dreadful, no better than two years ago. But, it has always been. Operationally, it is a lot more capable, and it is getting artillery shells in much greater numbers than Ukraine. There are precisely two European companies that manufacture artillery shells. However, Ukraine has the advantage in terms of possession and production of drones.

    2. Russians are willing to suffer hardship, to achieve military success, in ways we don’t fully appreciate in the West.

    3. But even Russia can’t defy economic gravity for ever. Soviet oil exports have been hit hard in recent months, partly due to drone attacks, and the regime is burning through foreign exchange reserves at an incredible speed. If Ukraine can keep fighting for 2-3 years, then it will likely win, as Russia runs out of resources.

    4. Germany’s commitment to Ukraine is now of vital importance. As well as aid, Germany is now training twice as many Ukrainian soldiers as the UK is.

    5. The reduction of the UK’s military capability, starting in 2010, is of real concern, throughout NATO. Cameron, Osborne and their successors have acted as if the world is growing safer, rather than more dangerous.

    6. Contrary to press reports, there is no shortage of people wishing to join the armed forces. The real problem is with Capita, taking up to 14 months to process applications, by which time, they’ve taken other jobs.

    On point 5 I do think, in fairness, that they were right that the conventional risks had substantially reduced with the collapse of the old Soviet bloc and the backwatering of Europe. I don't think that even Ukraine has fundamentally changed that analysis. Rather it has shown that the risk of a conventional Russian attack was substantially overstated by those with a vested interest in defence spending.

    What has changed, and is new, is the significance of drone technology in warfare. We are in a similar position in that respect to when ironclad ships made our large wooden navy redundant almost over night. The result of this development is that we are going to need a lot of new kit, to get rid of a lot of old kit and train our armed forces to fight in very different ways. That is going to cost significant money. The timing isn't great but there may well come a point when Ukraine is training the armies of western Europe rather than the other way around.
    Yes. Massed tank attacks are now possibly suicidal, and half the Russian Black Sea fleet has been destroyed by a side with almost no navy.
    Its fascinating to contemplate how differently the Gulf wars would have been fought with today's kit. Large scale tank battles would almost certainly not have happened.
    The technology development is lopsided and evolving. Equally could be that only vehicles with point defence systems (which already exist) can survive on the battle field. With unprotected individuals being doomed.
    Drones are available in such numbers now that there are lots of videos of FPV drones being flown into single infantry soldiers. An armoured vehicle might not be great protection against a drone, but it's still a damn sight better than being out in the open.

    Not sure there's much point in buying masses of new kit for the British Army, though. A bit hard to predict how things will shake out. The important things are to be able to rapidly develop new systems, and to produce them in large numbers - both of which Western military procurement is uniformly awful at doing.
This discussion has been closed.